India bans some GMO crops while biotech illegally plants others

India’s battles over genetically modified organisms (GMO) intensified this month as both sides maneuvered to promote or resist their proliferation. Mediating the debate, at least for now, is India’s Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh.

On February 10, Ramesh ordered a moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified brinjal (Bt-brinjal), a ubiquitous eggplant with 2,500 natural varieties. The Ministry seeks long term safety studies before lifting the ban.

“Very serious fears have been raised in many quarters on the possibility of Monsanto controlling our food chain if Bt-brinjal is approved. ¶11

“Dr. David Schubert of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, USA …. says that Bt-brinjal … will increase social and political dependence on private companies….” ¶17

“Eminent government scientists have confirmed to me that a vast proportion of Bt-cotton seed currently being used in India is controlled directly and indirectly by Monsanto.” (Footnote 4)

“As a country, we must learn to derive full benefit of Monsanto’s expertise and capabilities, without jeopardising national sovereignty…” ¶11

Then, on Feb. 15, the Agriculture Minister confirmed that an unapprovedgenetically modified crop – Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton – was commercially farmed illegally in three states for two crop seasons.

In response, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) moved on Feb. 18 to require registration of all GMO seeds. This will enable civil action against biotech firms should unapproved crops be sown or sold, inside sources told Business Standard. (Another decision Ramesh made on Feb. 10 was to partly change the name of the GEAC from “Approval” to “Appraisal.”)

Meanwhile, a bill has been introduced to usurp approval authority from the Enviro-Ministry, placing it under the purview of the Ministry of Science and Technology, which is mandated to promote biotechnology.

Groups reject stealth bill to usurp approval authority

South Against Genetic Engineering (SAGE), a coalition of over 100 groups in India, received the proposed bill anonymously, which is still marked “SECRET.” Under the Official Secrets Act, such documents are often not disclosed while being reworked. SAGE issued an alert that the moratorium on Bt-brinjal is being subverted by the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2009 (BRAI).

“BRAI is the naked attempt by the Biotechnology Department (within the Ministry of Science and Technology) to appropriate to itself the work of regulating biotechnology in addition to promoting biotechnology.”

BRAI is the latest incarnation of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, 2008, which she also opposed. Shiva advises that:

“BRAI … is a recipe for deepening the regulatory chaos as well as deepening the crisis created by conflict of interest issues related to genetic engineering.”

“The substantial parts of what the BRAI will cover are already covered by the EPA rules…. The proposed BRAI is in total denial of existing law. The proposed law pretends we do not have a law under the EPA…. The BRAI is an attempt to dismantle the 1989 Law, and replace it with a law for fast track promotion of GMOs.”

Author of Corrupt to the Core, Dr. Shiv Chopra, a Canadian-Indian microbiologist who led the fight against Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in Canada, smells a conspiracy. Currently on a speaking tour in India, he advises in an email that BRAI is the primary subject of his talks:

“I, too, am strongly opposed to it. If accepted, [BRAI] will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.

“BRAI is designed to preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.”

In halting deployment of Bt-brinjal, India’s Environment Minister noted the need for “an independent National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority… with integrity and impartiality…. In the absence of such a body, arguments that have been made on the limitations of the GEAC cannot be ignored.” ¶14

Many had questioned the decision of the GEAC to refuse several independent studies suggested by an expert panel, prior to recommending Bt-brinjal for approval last October.

“While there may be a debate on the nature and number of tests that need to be carried out for establishing human safety, it is incontrovertible that the tests have been carried out by the Bt-brinjal developers themselves and not in any independent lab. This does raise legitimate doubts on the reliability of the tests….” ¶10

Ramesh solicited opinions from all sectors of society, and from other nations. His 19-page decision, by the way, is a fascinating read, exemplifying transparent governance and a thorough hearing from all stakeholders.

Passing approval authority from him to an agency legally mandated to promote biotechnology – as BRAI proposes – will destroy any rational basis for confidence the public can have in approved GMOs.

Much thanks to Sheila Parks, Ed.D., Claudia Woodward-Rice, Kavitha Kuruganti, and others, for their suggestions and/or contributions to this report.

IF THE ministry of science and technology has its way, criticising genetically- modified ( GM) products could land you in jail.

An Indian citizen who questions the safety of any GM food or medicine could be put behind bars for a minimum period of six months under a new law proposed by the ministry.

The clause to silence critics of GM food is contained in the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India ( BRAI) Bill,2009 prepared by the Department of Biotechnology, which is a wing of the ministry of science and technology headed by Prithviraj Chavan.

‘Misleading public about organism and products’ is one of the crimes for which punishment has been prescribed in Section 63, Chapter 13 of the Bill which deals with various “ offences and penalties”. The clause specifically deals with critics of biotech products including GM food crops.

It reads, “ Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products specified in Part I or Part II or Part III of the Schedule I, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both.”

The list also includes vaccines for use in humans or animals that contain living genetically engineered organisms, cellular products including products composed of human, bacterial or animal cells as well as genetically engineered micro- organisms that may have application in agriculture, fisheries, forestry or food production.

Curiously, while every little term in the proposed law such as a “ company” or a “ director” has been defined, no explanation or definition has been given for terms used in section 63 such as “ evidence”, “ scientific record” and “ misleading”. If the Bill becomes a law and comes into force, anyone questioning the safety of Bt brinjal or stem cell therapy “ without evidence or scientific record” can be put behind bars. This is a scary scenario because many of the technologies mentioned in the Bill are still in the realm of research and have not been proven safe for humans.

Not just this, the Bill has another provision to punish anyone who “ without reasonable excuse, resists, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, impersonate, threaten, intimidate or assault an officer of the Authority or any person assigned to discharge any function under this Act, or in exercising his functions under this Act” with a jail term of three months and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh. In short, this clause seeks to punish anyone holding a demonstration or rally near the BRAI or where any official of the authority is visiting.

“This is a gag order, absolutely draconian and violative of Article ( 19) ( 1) ( a) of the Indian constitution which guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,” said Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan. “ It is definitely meant to scare people so that they don’t say anything against GM technology. Even journalists writing critical articles can be punished.”

The Bill has been criticised by several civil society activists. “If this law was in force today, environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who has questioned the safety of GM crops, would have been behind bars because he would have violated it,” said Devinder Sharma of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security. “ It is a dirty attempt to turn science into a ghetto, where all of us will be subjected to unhealthy GM products pushed down our throats by a willing government.” Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission said the Bill was meant to harass civil society’ groups concerned about the application of hazardous technologies.

“Who will decide what is ‘ misleading’, and on what basis? How about the ones who are making misleading claims about safety even when there is no conclusive proof of safety?” asked Kuruganti. …

The proposed legislation has no clauses on public participation in the process of approval.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (under the Convention on Biological Diversity which has been invoked in the preamble of the Bill, clearly states that signatory countries should “consult the public in decision- making process regarding living modified organisms”.

on 17th April 2010,there was a conference at Thanjavur ,Tamilnadu,India.

Farmers,Farmers’ leaders from various political parties,religion and intellectuals met and resolved to resiist the draganonian act of Indian Government .

The seed bill 2004, The Biotechnology regulatory authority Act bill 2009,the statutory amendments being worked out agrifarms in India by MNC came under severe condemnation.
Manmohan singh-George Bush authored2005 July 18 Indo -Us Indian Knowledge initiative in Agriculture alaso was criticised as an attempt to enslave the Indian agriculture by US agribusiness.